Speakeasy forum: Republican outrage over Benghazi

Clinton DID get requests/pleadings from Ambassadors for more security in 1998 at two embassies in Africa.......and both requests were denied.......and they were bombed to hell and back. Denial of protection seems to be a pattern with liberal leaders......

And this shows even more incompetence of Rice's ability to take over the Sec of State spot because she was 'involved' in the Clinton attacks as well.

http://gretawire.foxnewsinsider.com/2012/11/28/ambassador-rice-needs-to-refresh-her-memory-as-to-whether-when-she-was-head-of-the-african-region-for-state-department-in-1998-and-the-ambassadors-at-the-bombed-us-embassies-in-east-africa-each-b/

about two weeks behind the times.......I personally said that same thing here in SE. Maybe she's an anonymous member and read MY theory and reported it as HER news story? I guess you didn't see my post about that. I also said that if he doesn't get the spot for Sec of State that he will be offered the Panetta spot as head of the Defense..........God forbid.........and again take the chance that his Senate seat will be up for grabs.

of Reps backing him in order to hopefully gain his Senate seat is more honest and open than the prez.

two weeks ago......good grief.

It's nice of you to admit to the NON-transparency of the prez, too, by not trying to say he is.

She needs to "refresh her memory"?...What more do you need?......She's guilty as hell.

And this shows even more incompetence of Rice's ability to take over the Sec of State spot because she was 'involved' in the Clinton attacks as well.

She is definitely "involved", IF she says she needs to "refresh her memory".

Of course the words are not from Rice, they're from Collins...so that would make them "hearsay".

Since hearsay is admissible evidence, here's the rest of what Colins said that Rice said "she would have to refresh her memory" of the 1998 events but that she was not directly involved in rebuffing the request for additional embassy security in 1998."

I have some news for you..."No more security for this embassy"...

HEY!....Don't shoot me, I'm just the messenger.

Does this mean I'm "involved"?

She'll "Git 'er Done!" She's just as qualified as any of them.

but who should dare to say it? In this case, it would have been disaster for Obama's team to blow it off that way. As Americans, I do believe we deserve honest answers. Unfortunately the election timing threw in a variable that isn't going to be ignored. Had the parties in power been reversed, the same would happen...just different players on the giving and receiving ends.

attempts to coverup those earlier situations you mentioned. This Libya situation was not just blown reaction to intelligence available, but then the coverup attempt that ensued following the situation.

assigning racial prejudice to anyone opposing Obama.

I know some that I'm sure that is the issue, whether they admit it or not, but I know more where that isnt the case. I know blacks who admit they would vote for Obama no matter what because he is black. Their view of course only a black can understand their problems.

But you're behaving as badly assigning racist motivations and KKK accusations to any who disagree with him or you as any.

Sorry Ziks, while sometimes you point out interesting interpretations, you're also often overbearing and as intolerant as the worst of those you criticise so repeatedly.

none of those attacks came with warnings ahead of time nor did they come with pleadings from the Ambassadors et al for more security.......all of which happened in Benghazi and were ignored and/or denied outright. And you still haven't said what happened to the terrorists in those attacks you listed.....were they killed, caught, tried, sent to Gitmo, what???

And you know that, HOW? Because you/the public haven't heard about warnings

This one had warnings.


The Deafness Before the Storm

IT was perhaps the most famous presidential briefing in history.

On Aug. 6, 2001, President George W. Bush received a classified review of the threats posed by Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network, Al Qaeda. That morning's "presidential daily brief" — the top-secret document prepared by America's intelligence agencies — featured the now-infamous heading: "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." A few weeks later, on 9/11, Al Qaeda accomplished that goal.

On April 10, 2004, the Bush White House declassified that daily brief — and only that daily brief — in response to pressure from the 9/11 Commission, which was investigating the events leading to the attack. Administration officials dismissed the document's significance, saying that, despite the jaw-dropping headline, it was only an assessment of Al Qaeda's history, not a warning of the impending attack. While some critics considered that claim absurd, a close reading of the brief showed that the argument had some validity.

That is, unless it was read in conjunction with the daily briefs preceding Aug. 6, the ones the Bush administration would not release. While those documents are still not public, I have read excerpts from many of them, along with other recently declassified records, and come to an inescapable conclusion: the administration's reaction to what Mr. Bush was told in the weeks before that infamous briefing reflected significantly more negligence than has been disclosed. In other words, the Aug. 6 document, for all of the controversy it provoked, is not nearly as shocking as the briefs that came before it.

But there were other briefings, some seen by Eichenwald, that did warn of an imminent attack.

On May 1 the CIA said that a terrorist group in the U.S. was planning an attack.

On June 22 it warned that this attack was "imminent."

On June 29 the brief warned of near-term attacks with "dramatic consequences" including major casualties.

On July 1, the briefing said that the terrorist attack had been delayed but "will occur soon."

On July 24, the president was told again that the attack had been delayed but would occur within months.

'seriously' Clinton pressed the urgency during those briefings since he himself never took the threats seriously enough to do anything about them, Josh. Clinton had 8 years of warnings and actual attacks and did nothing.......Bush had no attacks during his first 8 months, concentrating more on domestic issues as would be expected, so he obviously felt he had time to deal with whatever the previous Administration might have given him intel on. If Clinton never felt the urgency in 8 years and multiple actual attacks, there was no reason to suspect that Bush 'should' have escalated that urgency in a measly 8 months, especially when most of that intel was pretty vague at that time consisting mostly of 'chatter' with nothing substantial for quite a while and, if I recall, there was no indication that commercial planes were going to be involved........There were no embassies being attacked, no ambassadors pleading for additional security, nada......Not so with THIS instance, Josh. Those pleadings were ignored and denied outright over a five month period of time......and on a regular basis.

are anything LESS than Actionable......

You are assuming that Bush thought the attacks would stop because he was president.......just as BO assumed the economy and the jobs would come roaring back in with a trillion spent on stimulus.........

There was plenty of reason to take the terror threat seriously. Multiple warnings and memos. What a ridiculous attempt to spin it.

Three thousand people were killed by terrorists right here on our own soil during Bush's presidency. Terrorists managed to fly a jet right into the Pentagon during Bush's presidency. There were, additionally, at least seven separate attacks on our embassies and consulates in other countries during Bush's presidency, and yet somehow, in Toni-land, four people killed in a single attack during Obama's presidency is more of a cause for outrage than the 3,000+ killed in at least eight different attacks during his predecessor's.

And you never did answer my question about how long a president has to be in office before he should be considered responsible for our safety.

.....was intentional disinformation on their part, as they were trying to fool those responsible into thinking we weren't on to them.

Believe that or not as you will, but that's what they're saying.